I agree, but it is difficult to do that when another senior figure, David Prescott, was accused of much worse and the Leader's office intervened to prevent his suspension. Labour needs a proper review of how it handles sexual allegations after the fiascos of the Prescott case, and the earlier Bex Bailey and Ava Etemadzadeh cases.

The only thing I know is that it is futile to try to predict court decisions. In the 1990s, as director of an insurer, I was on the end of judgements (about the discount rate) that we won unanimously in the Court of Appeal and lost unanimously in the House of Lords. I gave up at that point.

Every time an MP defects from the Conservatives the Labour acolytes scream about the LDs being Tory. Every time an MP defects from a Labour background the Tory acolytes scream about the LDs being socialist.

Annoying both sides only shows how terrified Labour and Conservatives are by the rise of the LDs.

It is cheaper than importing at circa $60 per BOE to the balance of payments. I think you will agree that onshore production is cheaper than offshore (much cheaper to drill, no huge cost platforms and undersea facilities etc). The operating cost per BOE for oil production on the UK continental shelf (offshore) in 2017 was £11.6 (circa $15). See https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/media/5072/ukcs-operating-costs-a5.pdf.

Good idea. What do we replace it with this year or until we have sufficient alternative sources? What do we use to keep traffic flowing until we have enough electric vehicles with sufficient range for CVs? The issue is not long term (I agree - stop using oil), it is the next 10-20 years.

Not my downvote, I rarely bother. But your argument is silly. I specifically cited onshore production which is cheaper. It is offshore fields which lift UK costs. And you have ignored the appalling behaviour of those who label conventional wells as fracking.

Cameron, Johnson, Corbyn and Farage - the Four Horsemen of the Brexit Apocalypse. Cameron enabled it, Johnson looked only for personal gain, Corbyn sabotaged the remain campaign and Farage did what you would expect.

I agree with outlawing fracking (on the precautionary principle), but it needs to be accompanied by draconian action against those who pretend that conventional drilling is fracking, as has held up development at sites such as Wressle. For every barrel of onshore oil not produced in the UK we are forced to import a barrel, usually from the Middle East, with huge transport costs and associated emissions. And yet groups of dishonest fanatics are prepared to pay that price and label any production as fracking. They (and councillors who ignore expert evidence) should be made to pay the price.

How? Currently UK law is aligned with US, Canadian and European states on a basic 20 years. In practice this gives an exclusivity period of, typically, 8-12 years since the rest of the time is taken up with testing and regulatory approval. So, if you cut the patent period by, say, 25% you would reduce the exclusivity period in the market by an average of 50%. This would ensure less focus and monies for new drugs and a much greater focus on reformulations and incremental changes which would not include drugs such as Orkambi. So reducing the period would actually harm the prospects for those currently suffering from difficult or rare conditions.

I can only think of 2 reasonable changes. One would be to treat new formulations of existing drugs as outside patent protection. There are risks to this since regulators require testing of new dosages and release/delivery mechanisms. Perhaps very short extensions for such developments. Again, this would be irrelevant to Orkambi. Secondly, and more fundamentally, the taxation of pharmaceutical companies could be changes to reflect ROE, so that if they achieve an ROE above a threshold then the surplus becomes subject to a windfall tax at a significant rate. Such a tax would have to allow for a high return due to the risks, and be measured over an extended period due to volatility in drug development. An average of 15% ROE over a rolling 5 years may work. Industry average is circa 13% but Astrazeneca (for example) made nearly 18% in their last year. Such a tax may generate (in time) the monies to pay for new drugs (and would discourage overpricing). Such a tax would be levied regardless of domicile and be based on UK revenue as a % of global revenue, prorating capital base.

No. I want him to say whether this specific commitment (which he has chosen to make) is to be funded from within his broader NHS funding plan or is an additional financial commitment. He has chosen to make the statement so it is entirely reasonable to ask the question.

A good example would be nationalisation without complying with the requirement under international law to provide compensation at market value.

However, whether we agree or not that Labour (and Conservatives) are extreme, there is no doubt that is the perception of the voters. YouGov have polled exactly this issue very recently. 46% of voters label the Conservatives as extreme (inc. 16% very extreme) and 52% label Labour as extreme (inc. 24% who see it as very extreme). Only the Brexit Party are considered more extreme (by 62%).
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/voters-view-tories-and-labour-as-extreme-parties-hd7ggtpk0

Typical? I have lost track of the number of discussions I have had with (especially) Americans who have not even seen it as a comedy, so I cannot accept it is a 'typical comedy' of any period. Whether we like black comedy or not, the greatness lies in a script which is both literate and tight, and probably the best performances of their careers by Farrell and Gleeson. Add in Ralph Fiennes doing the most brilliant take off of Ben Kingsley (a sort of in joke) and what is not to like.

Perhaps to best understand and appreciate it you also need to see some of McDonagh's theatre work, particularly the Lieutenant of Inishmore about the most insane commander of the INLA. Any play which winds up with the (approximate) line;
"Wee Tommy (a cat) goes out for a couple of nights on the tiles and we end up with four bodies, two dead cats and a shortage of shoe polish" gets my vote.

More money for the NHS -yes. Hundreds of millions for a specific drug - no. I would be content with the commitment if he said that either he would fund it from a specific quantified additional NHS commitment, or that he would fund it in addition to that commitment. At present he is trying to look good without detail.